You mean like how most places don't let you vote before you turn 18 because it is accepted that children have not developed the cognitive ability to make sound decisions in regards to electing officials?
This is a strawman argument. OP was talking about an age limit for elected officials, whereas you are now talking about age restrictions on the voters. Yes, we are both talking about cognitive decline in decision making; however there is a substantial difference between putting an age limit on those who can be in power vs. putting an age limit on those who can decide who is in power.
The issue with enacting a mandatory age limit in a democratically elected government is essentially conceding to the idea that the voters are unable to determine for themselves whether an elected official is competent, or not. This has substantial, and serious implications.
I would vote nay for defederating from them. While I personally found their content annoying, someone else may actually find it uesful. I blocked the users, and the problem was solved. This issue may arise again, however, if more spam users pop up on these instances than a single user could reasonably be expected to deal with. This could possibly, again, be fixed by the user blocking the instance, but this would have to wait for user-blocking of instances to be implemented.
Your original point is fundamentally flawed, though. The individual has no freedom of choice if the collective is making decisions for the individual. I am also not understanding how this is analogous to the prisoner's dilemma.
Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one's wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
Why would one "be missing them"? I would assume that whatever one needs to reduce risk would generally be available should they have need.
And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
Again, though, why should the government force people to do what is wise for their own personal health, and saftety? A person can assess their own risk, and act accordingly.
I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of.
I have no qualm with the use of masks -- in actuality, I would encourage it. What I take issue with is the enforcement of their use.
What I don’t like with Matrix is the load it puts on the server. It basically copies 100% of a room content to any server having one or more users registered in the room.
Retroactively?? I'm sure that one could configure this to not be the case... no?
So if you’re on a small server, and one user decides to join a 10k+ large room, your server may collapse under the load as it tries to stay in sync with the room’s activity.
"Collapse" meaning what, exactly? Do you mean run out of storage from the volume of content, or that processing all the messages is too taxing?
XMPP, on the other hand, has proven to be highly scalable
How does it scale differently than Matrix?
I’m not even sure I want a messaging account linked to any of my Fediverse accounts…
Every time a liberal gets a head cold the republicans start screaming that they’re not physically capable to hold office anymore, but Mitch McConnell can have a stroke on live tv in the middle of a debate and they’re ready to give him another year [...]
As much as people make fun of when people say this, this really is a “both sides” problem. [...]
You quite evidently agreed that there is a problem with incompetence, as the previous user pointed out.
Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source.
I'm sorry, what? This statement makes little sense. Are you saying that you are opposed to citing sources because you think that someone will claim that your source is non-trustworthy? That is litterally the entire point of citing a source.
Ironically, if one does look into your claim, they may come across this article. A nice excerpt from it is as follows:
CLAIM: Transportation Security Administration managers were told on Aug. 15 that by mid-September they, along with airport employees, will again be required to wear face masks and by mid-October the policy will apply to travelers as well. Further, the managers were told that COVID-19 lockdowns will return by December.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No such announcement was made to TSA managers, an agency spokesperson told The Associated Press. A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued a now-expired travel mask mandate in 2021, confirmed that such rumors are “utterly false.”
THE FACTS: With COVID-19 hospitalizations steadily inching up in the U.S. since early July, some on social media are falsely claiming that federal employees were told that mask requirements and other pandemic-era restrictions will start returning this fall.
The claim originated on the Aug. 18 episode of “The Alex Jones Show,” where its namesake host said an anonymous “high-level manager in the TSA” and an unnamed “Border Patrol-connected” source told him about the alleged announcement. Jones is known for spreading conspiracy theories.
It’s possible for everyone to have individual free choice in their actions, and yet the collective to be incapable of making the choice that everyone would individually prefer it to make
The entire point of individualism is that it is opposed to collectivism.
libertarians fly it without understanding it at all.
What? The Gadsden flag is, in effect, a symbol of Libertarianism.
The only flags that should be banned are those of enemy powers and traitors that the right wing loves to fly, such as the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag. Those two literally serve no purpose being flown in modern America because 1 was the flag of genocide and the other the flag of traitors and slavery.
Ignoring the fact that the 1st Ammendment would prohibit any such legislation from ever being passed, why ban hateful symbols? If the symbols are truly terrible, then the court of public opinion will handle it -- the solution to bad speech is better speech.
Liberals are defending it because it has historic roots in the founding of the nation
The Gadsden Flag is a much more powerful symbol than simply a historic prop. It encompasses ideas of personal liberty, and individualism. It is essentially a symbol of Libertarianism.
The Gadsden flag is primarily used as a symbol of Libertarianism -- it encompasses ideas of personal liberty, and individualism. But you are right -- the Gadsden flag made its first appearance in the American Revolutionary War.
Anyone waving that thing around now is either a reenactor, or a poser cosplaying as a tough guy.
A "reenactor"? While, yes, the flag was first used in the continental army, nowadyas, it has moved quite far from simply being used as a historical prop.
At this point, much like the Confederate Navy Jack, it has been co-opted to stand for racism and hatred.
In my opinion, most people that say that the Gadsden flag represents "racism and hatred" most likely take all their information on the symbol from the fearmongering media.
Agreed. The collective can only be so long as each individual contained within it is equally free. Inequalities of individual liberty within the collective begets a fundamentally oppressive structure.
The Gadsden flag is not opposed to the freedom of the collective; liberty for the individual does not necessitate an oppressive structure, but, instead, the collective can only be free if each individual is equally free.
The fact that you have stated this shows that there is a grassroots desire for this movement. If you truly wish to restore the flag -- as I do -- then you mustn't wait for someone else to do it for you, but, instead, you should take action yourself; stand up for what you believe in.
Paywalled.